Well, for the sake of discussion we can continue. Why don't you agree with the above? We can agree that someone is alive once they are born. What has changed about them through the process of exiting the womb that differentiates them from how they were an hour before, as a fetus. The only thing I can think of is physical location, changing from in to out of the womb.
They're a fully formed, totally independent person. I guess it's the independence that matters most to me. So maybe it makes sense to say a life starts at the cutting of the umbilical cord? I hadn't really thought about that before.What has changed about them through the process of exiting the womb that differentiates them from how they were an hour before, as a fetus. The only thing I can think of is physical location, changing from in to out of the womb.
In what way do you see them as independent? I concede that they can breath on their own, but there's not much else a newborn can do on its own. A baby right out of the womb certainly can't provide for itself and will likely die if left alone. How is it more independent now than before? With regards to the umbilical cord, would you consider killing a baby who is out of the womb yet still attached via this cord as morally the same as taking the morning after pill?
Physically. They're no longer physically attached to their mothers. Probably not. But I'm still just considering the idea that a baby attached at the umbilical cord isn't alive yet. Actually, y'know what, get back to me on this in the morning. I need some time to think.In what way do you see them as independent?
With regards to the umbilical cord, would you consider killing a baby who is out of the womb yet still attached via this cord as morally the same as taking the morning after pill?